Shaun,

This is a complicated issue.  Ideally, I don’t think there *should* be ANY splits over ecclesiology or the form of worship, nor do I think there *must* be any splits.  You know I’m Catholic and would love to have you all back. However, realistically, I have a tough time imagining people continuing to worship together in the midst of deep disagreements over these issues.  For some things (like the posture and manner of receiving communion or the detailed duties of deacons or how a particular church’s finances are handled) different ideas can coexist and can vary over time or from group to group with no real problems.  However, other issues of ecclesiology and the form of worship are more problematic.  An example of a fundamental issue of ecclesiology over which I see little chance of folks staying together in the midst of deep disagreement would be the form of church government.  Various camps that I don’t see coexisting are the episcopal/heirarchical (Anglican/Orthodox) vs. the representative/presbyterian (Presbyterian and Reform churches) vs. the congregationalist (e.g. Baptist/non-denominational/home church).  Yeah, I may have taken liberties with the congregationalist definition.  For fundamental questions of ecclesiology and the form of worship, it seems to me that one of three options is available when resolving disagreements.  Caveat, the following generalizes responses into broad categories, so there are details here that are glossed over and probably some broad categories that I’ve missed. 

1) No formal decision is made on the topic and people just continue to disagree with each other and do their own thing.  Because ecclesiology and the form of worship are very practical issues, someone’s interpretation will need to be implemented.  Speaking for myself, I have a tough time imagining coexistence working out and being substantially different than the status quo.  Perhaps, someone else has more experience with this sort of thing or an example of it working out long term.

2) A decision is reached and the “losing side” decides to stick with the main group and submit to the decision (e.g., the man Euphrony wrote about earlier who opposed his church’s decision to build yet supported it in the end, many/most Arian bishops after the Council of Nicea and many (though not all) Jews after the Council of Jerusalem)

3) A decision is reached and the “losing side” decides to stick with the group while continuing to advocate for change (e.g., Judaizers in the first century and people advocating for women priests in the Catholic Church).  This can work, but often doesn’t work out well.  When a decision is made, it is implemented.  People who are constantly opposing their church’s leadership do not tend to pass on the faith very well to their friends/children and/or tend to turn into fringe groups, almost always dieing off after a few generations if they don’t take the leap and split off.

So, what categories have I missed?  When you say you don’t think we MUST split over ecclesiological/form of worship questions, does that mean all of them or only some of them?  I would assume that you think some are worth splitting over, otherwise you would be uncomfortable with Protestantism’s very existence.  What issues other than these do you think are worth splitting over?  You broached the topic, yet haven’t seemed to offer up your own ideas (which I find puzzling).

“That’s like Benny Hinn having his own denomination today or Joel Osteen or Rick Warren or some other popular minister.” It reminds me of Chuck Smith/Calvary Chapel.  Of course, CC doesn’t call themselves a denomination.  However, having been a part of it for over a decade, I don’t see why not.  They seem to be just as much of a denomination as the Churches of Christ.

MB

funny enough, I’m sure a lot of people who attend Alliance churches have never heard AB Simpson’s name.  I’ve never heard it mentioned in the church I go to right now.  I wouldn’t even know we were alliance if we didn’t have missions conference.  Of course that could be b/c this is southern california land of non-denom rules!!!! ha. 

i’m well impressed with your knowledge of AB Simpson, but I suppose you travel to a lot of churches.  I’m used to no one knowing who we are!

Fascinating guy, Simpson.  Starts a ministry to the poor and it seems to have accidentally (almost) become a denomination of its own over time.  Things seem to have really taken off and drawn a loyal crowd when he started healing people.

That’s like Benny Hinn having his own denomination today or Joel Osteen or Rick Warren or some other popular minister.  It just grew into a denomination as his followers increased.  Strange amazing stuff.

How is this possible?  At some point, somebody had to leave another group to start the one you are in.  Unless it was formed by people who received the Bible from an angel, every denomination has an origin/geneology.  What am I missing here?

MB

The denomination I grew up in (and am still a part of) did not start from a split and has never split so far as I know.